I just picked up this months GRM and read up on the article CRXLEE had mentioned.
Though it showed some suprising results, I am curious if they spent time adjusting the Motons and the koni double adjustables. Quite frankly I was pretty disapointed OTS koni yellows were that close to those 2x and 4x more expensive shocks (but also glad since that is what i own)


BTW, nice picture Warren

 

I was seriously bummed that the big-$$$ shocks were valved incorrectly for the application. It should have been an interesting article, but there wasn't a whole lot you could learn from it due to the Motons being valved so firm.

Like you, I wondered how much effort they put into tuning the other setups (especially the stock Konis, since the Motons weren't going to work well no matter what). Since the modified Konis were the car's ordinary setup, I assume that it's as fine-tuned as you can get. If they didn't put much effort into the other sets, it's apples-to-oranges. Or at least Granny Smith to McIntosh.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Audipwr1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> Quite frankly I was pretty disapointed OTS koni yellows were that close to those 2x and 4x more expensive shocks (but also glad since that is what i own)</TD></TR></TABLE>

Ditto, I can't see 99% of people justifying the cost of the "better" shocks.

 

When we were approached for the article, we were a bit concerned about the outcome. Knowing Bob Tunnell as one of the best autocrossers in the country, especially one of the best at weilding a BMW around cones as well as someone pretty familiar with both the high dollar Motons and the KONIs, we basically figured that the KONIs would do quite well but probably just get beaten by the Motons for best time. Our concern was that although one solid message would be that "the KONIs are the best bang for the buck time vs. dollars" that in the end one would also come up with the flat statement "When cost is no object, the Motons are quicker". KONI does make higher end shocks than our OTS units but we have not had someone of the caliber of Tunnell do specific work on BMWs on them in autocross over time and refine them to the sharp edge. Showing our not highest end parts against their highest end autocross developed valvings was going to put us at a disadvantage in an not necessarily head-to-head fight. Bob and the Bimmerhaus folks do have enough experience with both brands for enough years that I was not concerned about the ability to get them adjusted to their best advantage. It would be different if it was Joe Average or someone unfamiliar with one brand but this was not the case.

I was as surprised as anyone that the OTS KONI units did so well and when mixed with TCs DA rears that they actually beat the Motons that cost 3-4 times (don't recall the numbers now) more. I did arrange the dyno testing so I saw all the graphs first hand and the Moton graph really was the nothing-really-particularly special graph that we normally expect from Moton, JRZ, Penske, etc.

As for the wrap up comments about the Motons not really being valved right for that particular BMW, I have my own thoughts about that that I won't push too hard on but just remind one that the KONI units were by no means specially valved whatsoever for autocross at all but instead are lifetime warranted, all around performance units made primarily for street duty while the Motons were specifically valved to go around cones.

I have stated on here before that there is a lot of perception about dampers and function, much based on price and marketing and not necessailry proven out is real function. I think this proves that BLING + BUCKS is not always = BEST.

 

perception is everything... even if far from the truth. that's what i've learn about a lot recently.

anyway, i agree with you there a lot of products out there (not just shocks) that are marketed with all sort of buzz words like custom engineered but in reality only a little extra time was spent on the development.

with all the track days and ppl i know, i've seen plenty of hyped up talk on lot of things. there are very few things that's truly "exhaustively" tested.

 

Lee,

I recently talked with a DMS rep and he certainly gave some convincing arguments regarding their 50mm shaft suspension
Have you had any experience with this system.

I would like to see another test with some more scientific method in it to determine the "best" shock

 

Lee,

I think it would be really interesting if you could explain to the assembled masses here what we can expect to feel as we change from soft to stiff low speed compression and rebound, soft to stiff high speed compression and rebound, digressive vs progressive curves in both compression vs rebound for both the road race (high speed turns) and the autocrosser (low speed turns and lots of transitions).

I realize this is asking a lot but I find the significance of compression vs rebound settings to be kind of baffling and I am sure others are in the same boat.

Anyone else who has an opinion, feel free to chime in.

Regards,
Alan

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Audipwr1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I would like to see another test with some more scientific method in it to determine the "best" shock.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Probably the only thing they could have done differently to make this a better test is to have had Bob run "blind." That is, do the baseline test with the "regular" setup, then switch to another setup without telling him which shocks were on the car. No preconceived notions as to how the car should handle....

I've driven Kevin's car. I don't think Motons would have made the difference between me and him (I was 1.5 back over two days). More seat time, yes, but not shocks. Too many people think that it's their equipment holding them back, when the truth hurts -- it's them. It's just easier to whine and complain that the "other guy" has $6K shocks and Hoosiers than to actually do something like take an Evo school or do more events.

Karen

 

i agree karen, most ppl can't handle the truth...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CamaroFS34 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Probably the only thing they could have done differently to make this a better test is to have had Bob run "blind." That is, do the baseline test with the "regular" setup, then switch to another setup without telling him which shocks were on the car. No preconceived notions as to how the car should handle....</TD></TR></TABLE>
Absolutely.
I was into stereo equipment a while back, and this was the best way of choosing the tonal qualities of the piece you were auditioning. No light, no names given, just sit back and listen. You can hear a difference, but never knew the name of which piece of equipment you were listening to. One would hit you right eventually.
Sometimes it was the cheap one, sometimes it was the expensive one.
And we'd do it over and over, sometimes not actually changing anything.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Eee Pee &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Absolutely.
I was into stereo equipment a while back, and this was the best way of choosing the tonal qualities of the piece you were auditioning. No light, no names given, just sit back and listen. You can hear a difference, but never knew the name of which piece of equipment you were listening to. One would hit you right eventually.
Sometimes it was the cheap one, sometimes it was the expensive one.
And we'd do it over and over, sometimes not actually changing anything. </TD></TR></TABLE>

unlike an eye exam for glasses
1...or...2.....1....or....2......1a.....or .....2a.......

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Audipwr1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Lee,

I recently talked with a DMS rep and he certainly gave some convincing arguments regarding their 50mm shaft suspension
Have you had any experience with this system.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I can't say as I know what DMS is nor a 50mm shaft. Is it perchance like an inverted mono-tube high pressure gas strut that uses the damper cylinder body itself as the chromed surface that the guide travels on thus looking like a huge shaft? That would then put you about the the 50mm diameter ballpark (Bilstein does this periodically as do other inverted mono-tube struts like our 28 Series race struts). What you see is not the shaft but the piston rod up through the middle is still the typical 10-12 mm like most shocks have.

 

Of the fancy stuff, I'd love to have seen custom-valved stuff that was actually valved for the application. And throw a set of custom valved Konis in there as another data point. Of course, custom valved stuff is pricey, and I imagine not all that easy to get for a magazine article. Regardless, I enjoyed the article.

Now Karen...

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CamaroFS34 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Too many people think that it's their equipment holding them back, when the truth hurts -- it's them.</TD></TR></TABLE>

This is probably best saved for another thread, but I'd be interested to hear your (and the others') thoughts on the following question.

At what point in a driver's learning curve should the driver start to look at the equipment for answers?

EDIT: started new thread here


Modified by krshultz at 10:20 PM 8/8/2003

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CamaroFS34 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Probably the only thing they could have done differently to make this a better test is to have had Bob run "blind." That is, do the baseline test with the "regular" setup, then switch to another setup without telling him which shocks were on the car. No preconceived notions as to how the car should handle....
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yes to be more scientific they could have done it blind but also they should have increased the number of drivers, cars, etc. I don't think this article meant to be or presents itself as the "be all and end all" final answer, if for only the fact that they tested only three brands (OE Sachs, KONI & Moton) and they were across huge price ranges.

Instead I think the intent was to try recognized dampers from three very different price ranges and see how price and performance worked themselves out. By getting a driver that few will dispute as the or one of the best BMW autocross pilots in the country and putting him in a solidly prepared car on last year's Solo II national course is a pretty respectable methodology for testing whether he know which dampers he was running on or not. Since he is the authority himself and played an active roll in the set-up and actually specced and sourced the Motons himself, I think the fact that the most expensive units did not win (as most people would have expected) is evidence that the outcome was not harmed by his knowledge.

Nowhere in the article does it say "...so KONI is the best damper" (although I wish it did ) so instead it leaves the reader with more info than he started with and a few things to think about.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by krshultz &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Of the fancy stuff, I'd love to have seen custom-valved stuff that was actually valved for the application. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Actually the Motons were custom valved autocross units for a BMW. Yes the M3 has more tire, power and an LSD but in the grand scheme of things these cars are pretty darned similar and you'd be surprised how minor the differences in the valvings would be. The biggest difference is that the E46 M3 uses a different upper strut mount, the actual valvings themselves aren't very different between the two cars. I did the much of the R&D driving on the street KONI M3 units myself.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 00R101 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I think it would be really interesting if you could explain to the assembled masses here what we can expect to feel as we change from soft to stiff low speed compression and rebound, soft to stiff high speed compression and rebound, digressive vs progressive curves in both compression vs rebound for both the road race (high speed turns) and the autocrosser (low speed turns and lots of transitions).
</TD></TR></TABLE>

While I'm at it I'll explain the meaning of life too . There are too many things going on, too much information, too many variables, etc. to try to do justice to this and I certainly don't have the typing skills or time to hunt-and-peck my way through this. For those who met me at Hyperfest and sat in on one of my short seminars, or know me in general realize that I can go on and on forever on this stuff and it is hard to cover it all. All I can say is that if you are interested there is a lot published on shocks, valving and tuning and how things work by a number of writers (but PLEASE ignore that recent series in North American Pylon) that is available. For awhile there was an article of mine from about 1997 still on-line somewhere in the archives of Grassroots Motorsports that has some basic stuff.

This is just too much to cover and sort out. Read up on what you can. Don't take too much as the gospel, as some people aren't the authority they profess to be (see above), unless you see info generally as repeating themes and it makes solid sense to you. As with anything, take in what you can, skim off the chaff and keep the valuable stuff then move on to the next one. Combine that with examples or questions from your personal experience and learn how to better evaluate it. I am still learning a lot as I go and my "model" or explanations change as I learn more as well.

 

speaking from the point of view of someone who has actually raced on Motons, I rate them better than most shocks available. I have a pretty nice setup this year with custom revalved Bilsteins, but the lap times speak for themselves:

VIR North 02 1:44.7
VIR North 03 1:46.0

Anyone want to guess which on was the Motons?

HOWEVER. its not a bolt on application. its takes to testing and time to setup. I also dont consider it a Autocross shcok package. either.

 

hi kingrat... but was that all from the shock change only? what was the other shock? just wondering...

 

I think comparing year-to-year results are not going to be accurate. Must do the tests on the same day, etc... Also, you have a new (not bent up) car this year. Who knows if other things are different.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Also, you have a new (not bent up) car this year.</TD></TR></TABLE>

All things equal, I would think that a non-bent car would be faster...and yet, it is not.

 

Agreed there are some other differences (mostly bondo, & about 50lbs heavier) but the track was quicker in 03 so I attribute quite a lot of it to the Moton setup.

I can definitely feel the difference, but on the flip side its not as hard to keep it on the track! the Moton setup allows the car to be setup to the extreme (mm lets say 1400lb rear springs). but as with most extremes its a trade off.

However at $4800+ a set Im very happy with my $2500 custom bilsteins by Morris dampers.

KR.